This chapter assesses the US-led counter-terrorism response to the September 2001 attacks on the American homeland in order to gauge the successes and failures of the Global War on Terror. It ...
More

This chapter assesses the US-led counter-terrorism response to the September 2001 attacks on the American homeland in order to gauge the successes and failures of the Global War on Terror. It concludes that successes against transnational terrorist threats, as represented by al-Qaida and its affiliates, have been few and far between. Instead, the past decade has been marked by a failure to meet set goals for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: the shifting character of war, the unintended fallouts of the counter-terrorism policies adopted, and an inadvertent strengthening of al-Qaida’s material and ideological capabilities through the US macro-securitisation of the Global War on Terror–all of which point to the absence of a long-term strategic vision. However, our counter-terrorism failures hold crucial lessons for the future and the chapter concludes by outlining how they can enable us to translate our past failures into future successes.Less

Rashmi Singh

Published in print: 2015-11-12

This chapter assesses the US-led counter-terrorism response to the September 2001 attacks on the American homeland in order to gauge the successes and failures of the Global War on Terror. It concludes that successes against transnational terrorist threats, as represented by al-Qaida and its affiliates, have been few and far between. Instead, the past decade has been marked by a failure to meet set goals for a number of reasons, including but not limited to: the shifting character of war, the unintended fallouts of the counter-terrorism policies adopted, and an inadvertent strengthening of al-Qaida’s material and ideological capabilities through the US macro-securitisation of the Global War on Terror–all of which point to the absence of a long-term strategic vision. However, our counter-terrorism failures hold crucial lessons for the future and the chapter concludes by outlining how they can enable us to translate our past failures into future successes.

The eight long years of the second Bush Administration and the War on Terror that it prosecuted have generated an extraordinary number of complex and divisive questions of constitutional law. ...
More

The eight long years of the second Bush Administration and the War on Terror that it prosecuted have generated an extraordinary number of complex and divisive questions of constitutional law. Notably, however, most of the constitutional disputes arising out of the War on Terror have not primarily implicated the main topic of this book, the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, they have tended to relate to topics such as the separation of powers, the scope of and limits on executive power, and the role of international law. This is not to say that the Bill of Rights is completely irrelevant to these disputes; in particular, the detention of enemy combatants clearly implicates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the National Security Agency's (NSA) program of warrantless wiretapping potentially violates the Search and Seizure Clause of the Fourth Amendment. On the whole, however, the role of the Bill of Rights has certainly been peripheral in recent disputes, and even when clearly implicated, their application to these disputes has been far from clear. Why that is so, but why the insights we have developed up to this point nonetheless shed important light on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the War on Terror, is the subject of this chapter.Less

Structural Rights and the War on Terror

ASHUTOSH BHAGWAT

Published in print: 2010-02-10

The eight long years of the second Bush Administration and the War on Terror that it prosecuted have generated an extraordinary number of complex and divisive questions of constitutional law. Notably, however, most of the constitutional disputes arising out of the War on Terror have not primarily implicated the main topic of this book, the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, they have tended to relate to topics such as the separation of powers, the scope of and limits on executive power, and the role of international law. This is not to say that the Bill of Rights is completely irrelevant to these disputes; in particular, the detention of enemy combatants clearly implicates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the National Security Agency's (NSA) program of warrantless wiretapping potentially violates the Search and Seizure Clause of the Fourth Amendment. On the whole, however, the role of the Bill of Rights has certainly been peripheral in recent disputes, and even when clearly implicated, their application to these disputes has been far from clear. Why that is so, but why the insights we have developed up to this point nonetheless shed important light on the constitutionality of certain aspects of the War on Terror, is the subject of this chapter.

This is a book which aims to overturn existing understandings of the origins and futures of the War on Terror for the purposes of International Relations theory. As the book shows, this is not a war ...
More

This is a book which aims to overturn existing understandings of the origins and futures of the War on Terror for the purposes of International Relations theory. As the book shows, this is not a war in defence of the integrity of human life against an enemy defined simply by a contradictory will for the destruction of human life as commonly supposed by its liberal advocates. It is a war over the political constitution of life in which the limitations of liberal accounts of humanity are being put to the test if not rejected outright.Less

The Biopolitics of the War on Terror : Life Struggles, Liberal Modernity and the Defence of Logistical Societies

Julian Reid

Published in print: 2006-12-31

This is a book which aims to overturn existing understandings of the origins and futures of the War on Terror for the purposes of International Relations theory. As the book shows, this is not a war in defence of the integrity of human life against an enemy defined simply by a contradictory will for the destruction of human life as commonly supposed by its liberal advocates. It is a war over the political constitution of life in which the limitations of liberal accounts of humanity are being put to the test if not rejected outright.

The declaration of a Caliphate in June 2014 by an al-Qaida offshoot implied a strong sense of political–religious unity, but, in reality, the announcement reflected deep division at the heart of ...
More

The declaration of a Caliphate in June 2014 by an al-Qaida offshoot implied a strong sense of political–religious unity, but, in reality, the announcement reflected deep division at the heart of radical Islam. This article critically assesses al-Qaida’s progress on its four main objectives over the course of the 9/11 decade, and suggests that its principal setbacks were due to the fragmentation of Islamic authority. In particular, Osama bin Laden’s inability to reverse the misguided focus, by some affiliated groups, on the ‘nearer enemy’, began to portend al-Qaida’s downfall. However, after the Arab Spring, in the chokeholds of strong states and the chaos of weak states al-Qaida found advantage. Furthermore, with the rise of groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a new pattern of radicalism emerged, in which the threat to ‘far enemy’, ‘near enemy’ and ‘nearer enemy’ were combined.Less

Al-Qaida and the 9/11 Decade

Alia Brahimi

Published in print: 2015-11-12

The declaration of a Caliphate in June 2014 by an al-Qaida offshoot implied a strong sense of political–religious unity, but, in reality, the announcement reflected deep division at the heart of radical Islam. This article critically assesses al-Qaida’s progress on its four main objectives over the course of the 9/11 decade, and suggests that its principal setbacks were due to the fragmentation of Islamic authority. In particular, Osama bin Laden’s inability to reverse the misguided focus, by some affiliated groups, on the ‘nearer enemy’, began to portend al-Qaida’s downfall. However, after the Arab Spring, in the chokeholds of strong states and the chaos of weak states al-Qaida found advantage. Furthermore, with the rise of groups like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a new pattern of radicalism emerged, in which the threat to ‘far enemy’, ‘near enemy’ and ‘nearer enemy’ were combined.

This chapter examines the seemingly unique post-9/11 political landscape, which also showcases the cycle of ambivalence in a very different and more condensed context. In the early months and years ...
More

This chapter examines the seemingly unique post-9/11 political landscape, which also showcases the cycle of ambivalence in a very different and more condensed context. In the early months and years after the attacks, especially seen in the USA Patriot Act and the Iraq War resolution, Congress delegated extraordinary powers not only through the bills' text but also through the unorthodox speed and limited deliberations preceding their passage. Congressional rhetoric in the year after 9/11 echoed the Bush administration's argument that only it saw the nation's interest, while members who advocated the House and the Senate's traditional prerogative to review the administration's requests were branded as obstructionists or worse. Congress had its chances to question the nation's intelligence problems related to 9/11, the Iraq war, and the administration's management of the War on Terror in general during congressional reviews and confirmation hearings, but these did not result in extraordinary changes in policy or major cuts in Bush's spending requests.Less

Dramatic Circumstances, Dramatic Ambivalence : Congress Post-9/11

Jasmine Farrier

Published in print: 2010-03-24

This chapter examines the seemingly unique post-9/11 political landscape, which also showcases the cycle of ambivalence in a very different and more condensed context. In the early months and years after the attacks, especially seen in the USA Patriot Act and the Iraq War resolution, Congress delegated extraordinary powers not only through the bills' text but also through the unorthodox speed and limited deliberations preceding their passage. Congressional rhetoric in the year after 9/11 echoed the Bush administration's argument that only it saw the nation's interest, while members who advocated the House and the Senate's traditional prerogative to review the administration's requests were branded as obstructionists or worse. Congress had its chances to question the nation's intelligence problems related to 9/11, the Iraq war, and the administration's management of the War on Terror in general during congressional reviews and confirmation hearings, but these did not result in extraordinary changes in policy or major cuts in Bush's spending requests.

Ben Herzog

Published in print:

2015

Published Online:

May 2016

ISBN:

9780814760383

eISBN:

9780814770962

Item type:

book

Publisher:

NYU Press

DOI:

10.18574/nyu/9780814760383.001.0001

Subject:

Law, Human Rights and Immigration

Revoking citizenship has been an official part of American policy since the end of the nineteenth century. This book sheds light on the current state practice by looking at its transformation in the ...
More

Revoking citizenship has been an official part of American policy since the end of the nineteenth century. This book sheds light on the current state practice by looking at its transformation in the United States from the colonial era to the War on Terror. Not limited to a legal studies perspective, it also places the revocation of citizenship within the framework of historical sociology. An examination is conducted of the laws and legal procedures involved in the revocation of citizenship, which include statutory bills, acts, and relevant constitutional amendments, proposed and legislated; court opinions, proceedings, and protocols of commissions regarding the loss of citizenship; and international and bilateral treaties. Consular correspondence, debates within the Department of State, and statistical data regarding the implementation of citizenship-revocation measures are examined, as well. The study of the revocation of citizenship simultaneously gives information about topical events and provides insight into the nature of rights in general in the modern world. The chapter shows that expatriation policy is an attempt to regulate and enforce the national world order. According to the national logic, national allegiance should be exclusive to a single nation-state, and multiple citizenships should not be allowed. The practice of taking away citizenship was introduced largely to eliminate dual citizenship, which poses a great challenge to the national logic that assumes full loyalty to one’s nation-state.Less

Revoking Citizenship : Expatriation in America from the Colonial Era to the War on Terror

Ben Herzog

Published in print: 2015-02-06

Revoking citizenship has been an official part of American policy since the end of the nineteenth century. This book sheds light on the current state practice by looking at its transformation in the United States from the colonial era to the War on Terror. Not limited to a legal studies perspective, it also places the revocation of citizenship within the framework of historical sociology. An examination is conducted of the laws and legal procedures involved in the revocation of citizenship, which include statutory bills, acts, and relevant constitutional amendments, proposed and legislated; court opinions, proceedings, and protocols of commissions regarding the loss of citizenship; and international and bilateral treaties. Consular correspondence, debates within the Department of State, and statistical data regarding the implementation of citizenship-revocation measures are examined, as well. The study of the revocation of citizenship simultaneously gives information about topical events and provides insight into the nature of rights in general in the modern world. The chapter shows that expatriation policy is an attempt to regulate and enforce the national world order. According to the national logic, national allegiance should be exclusive to a single nation-state, and multiple citizenships should not be allowed. The practice of taking away citizenship was introduced largely to eliminate dual citizenship, which poses a great challenge to the national logic that assumes full loyalty to one’s nation-state.

The case of defining torture in the “War on Terror”, the political processes chosen, and the people chosen to carry them out, produces results that nobody wants while targeting outcomes that only a ...
More

The case of defining torture in the “War on Terror”, the political processes chosen, and the people chosen to carry them out, produces results that nobody wants while targeting outcomes that only a fraction of the citizens would find morally acceptable. In the case of “Defining Torture”, the decision maker may choose such a “blinded” process for political reasons. President George Bush did conclude that the provisions of Common Article 3 did not apply to either Al Qaeda or the Taliban and that, further, the Taliban detainees were “unlawful combatants” and, like the Al Qaeda captives, did not qualify as prisoners of wars (POWs) under the Third Geneva Convention.Less

The Dependence of Policy Outcomes on Processes of Choice

Philip B. Heymann

Published in print: 2008-04-02

The case of defining torture in the “War on Terror”, the political processes chosen, and the people chosen to carry them out, produces results that nobody wants while targeting outcomes that only a fraction of the citizens would find morally acceptable. In the case of “Defining Torture”, the decision maker may choose such a “blinded” process for political reasons. President George Bush did conclude that the provisions of Common Article 3 did not apply to either Al Qaeda or the Taliban and that, further, the Taliban detainees were “unlawful combatants” and, like the Al Qaeda captives, did not qualify as prisoners of wars (POWs) under the Third Geneva Convention.

This chapter grounds itself in Berrigan’s political, economic, and moral reading of the American war-making state, and in the civil disobedience of Berrigan at a Catonsville draft board center. Harak ...
More

This chapter grounds itself in Berrigan’s political, economic, and moral reading of the American war-making state, and in the civil disobedience of Berrigan at a Catonsville draft board center. Harak claims that Berrigan’s understanding of American’s “permanent war economy,” one in which anything or anyone may be up for sale or sacrificed, remains fundamentally true. He suggests, however, that there’s been a paradigm shift in the ways that America generates and produces its wars since the time of Catonsville. Namely, there’s been a movement from wars being a profitable venture to the making of war for the sake of profit. Harak’s reading of the “war question,” along with his acute sensitivity to the suffering of those ravaged by war, insists that we question the viability of Catholic just war theory, just as Berrigan did years earlier.Less

The “Global War on Terror”: Who Wins? Who Loses?

G. Simon Harak

Published in print: 2012-04-02

This chapter grounds itself in Berrigan’s political, economic, and moral reading of the American war-making state, and in the civil disobedience of Berrigan at a Catonsville draft board center. Harak claims that Berrigan’s understanding of American’s “permanent war economy,” one in which anything or anyone may be up for sale or sacrificed, remains fundamentally true. He suggests, however, that there’s been a paradigm shift in the ways that America generates and produces its wars since the time of Catonsville. Namely, there’s been a movement from wars being a profitable venture to the making of war for the sake of profit. Harak’s reading of the “war question,” along with his acute sensitivity to the suffering of those ravaged by war, insists that we question the viability of Catholic just war theory, just as Berrigan did years earlier.

This chapter looks at the depiction of the War on Terror in Michael Winterbottom’s The Shock Doctrine (2009), In this World (2002), A Mighty Heart (2007), and The Road to Guantánamo (2006). These ...
More

This chapter looks at the depiction of the War on Terror in Michael Winterbottom’s The Shock Doctrine (2009), In this World (2002), A Mighty Heart (2007), and The Road to Guantánamo (2006). These films eschew the martial spectacle, seductive carnage, and oppositional moral framing of the conventional war film. Instead, they focus on combat and the ideologically and narratively restrictive perspective of the soldier’s experience in order to concentrate on marginal figures caught up in the wave of violence, racism, and paranoia that travelled across the globe in the wake of the 2001 attacks. In their orientation around marginal figures, Winterbottom’s films recognise the impossibility of producing a comprehensive, fully coherent account of the war, and instead they make visible bodies and make audible voices that have been absent from, obliterated by, or terrorised and abjected by dominant accounts of war.Less

Borders and Terror

Bruce Bennett

Published in print: 2013-11-26

This chapter looks at the depiction of the War on Terror in Michael Winterbottom’s The Shock Doctrine (2009), In this World (2002), A Mighty Heart (2007), and The Road to Guantánamo (2006). These films eschew the martial spectacle, seductive carnage, and oppositional moral framing of the conventional war film. Instead, they focus on combat and the ideologically and narratively restrictive perspective of the soldier’s experience in order to concentrate on marginal figures caught up in the wave of violence, racism, and paranoia that travelled across the globe in the wake of the 2001 attacks. In their orientation around marginal figures, Winterbottom’s films recognise the impossibility of producing a comprehensive, fully coherent account of the war, and instead they make visible bodies and make audible voices that have been absent from, obliterated by, or terrorised and abjected by dominant accounts of war.

This chapter argues that it is a mistake to construe the War on Terror, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that have followed it, and the broader reassertion of American military and strategic ...
More

This chapter argues that it is a mistake to construe the War on Terror, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that have followed it, and the broader reassertion of American military and strategic power globally, in the simplistic terms of the ‘return’ of a state-fermented form of imperialism. For sure, the 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre did initiate some changes in the organisation of power internationally, but it did not forge a regression. Central to the argument is the continuing and essential role of biopolitical forms of discourse and agency in the twenty-first century. In essence, while the reassertion of the military power of this one particular state, the United States, ought to make us aware of the continuing importance of traditional forms of sovereign power, it remains as, if not more, necessary, to concentrate on the imperial function of biopolitics here in the post-9/11 era. If we want to understand how it is that the United States is able to wage war in the terms that it is doing today, to reassert its capacities as a sovereign state, it is necessary to focus upon the roles of non-state biopolitical forms of agency in constituting and legitimising such violence. Bereft of its biopolitical context, such violence would be meaningless and impossible to sustain. In this sense it is the biopolitical which is the constitutive force within the imperial machine which we see today expanding and intensifying its controls over life globally.Less

Nomadic life: war, sovereignty, and resistance to the biopolitical imperium

Julian Reid

Published in print: 2006-12-31

This chapter argues that it is a mistake to construe the War on Terror, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq that have followed it, and the broader reassertion of American military and strategic power globally, in the simplistic terms of the ‘return’ of a state-fermented form of imperialism. For sure, the 2001 attack on the World Trade Centre did initiate some changes in the organisation of power internationally, but it did not forge a regression. Central to the argument is the continuing and essential role of biopolitical forms of discourse and agency in the twenty-first century. In essence, while the reassertion of the military power of this one particular state, the United States, ought to make us aware of the continuing importance of traditional forms of sovereign power, it remains as, if not more, necessary, to concentrate on the imperial function of biopolitics here in the post-9/11 era. If we want to understand how it is that the United States is able to wage war in the terms that it is doing today, to reassert its capacities as a sovereign state, it is necessary to focus upon the roles of non-state biopolitical forms of agency in constituting and legitimising such violence. Bereft of its biopolitical context, such violence would be meaningless and impossible to sustain. In this sense it is the biopolitical which is the constitutive force within the imperial machine which we see today expanding and intensifying its controls over life globally.